IN FORCE Policy Relaxation Committee Advance Authorisation 2021-02-18

DGFT Committee Minutes

Document text

==> picture [332 x 77] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- eas | Date of Uploading23 |02/2021 | Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) ----- End of picture text -----

Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting Held on 18.02.2021 under the Chairmanship of Shri Amit Yadav, Director General of Foreign Trade

Meeting No.23/AM21 held on 18.02.2021

The following members were present in the meeting:

Shri Vijay Kumar Addl. DGFT 2. Shri S.B.S. Reddy Addl. DGFT 3. Shri Hardeep Singh Addl. DGFT 4. Shri Anil Aggarwal Addl. DGFT 5. Shri Rajbir Sharma Jt. DGFT

Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:-

==> picture [453 x 401] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | S.No | Name of the firm | Case No. | | _ 1. | Mis. Flowserve India Controls Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore _ | Tee | |___2.3. _| M/s. Mak [Controls] and Systems (P) Ltd., Coimbatore | 3 | M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., Mumbai = es aa 4to6 | ___4. M/s. MDA Agrocot Pvt. Ltd., Amravati,Maharashtra, 7 ___5. | M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, Noida | 8 __6.| M/s. Sutlej Ropes Pvt. Lid,Mumbai ____7. _| M/s. RR Kabel Limited, Mumbai a | 1O0Q1T | | 8. | M/s. Bikash Sharma, Malda, West Bengal i _t2 | _9. | M/s. Arvind Limited, Anmedabad | | Se 10. | [M/s.] [Gulnar] [Plastics] [Pvt.] [Ltd.,] [Mumbai] ee |. | 11. | M/s. APS Hydro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi | a  12. | M/s. Sanchita Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai oe ee ee | 13. | M/s. Shirdi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai a a: Se | __ 14. | M/s. Pon Pure Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai i 2 | 15. | M/s. H.R. Polycoats Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi as: Se | 16. | M/s. Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore — ae | 17. | M/s. Asian Tire Factory Ltd., Jalandhar | eS) eee . oe 18. | M/s. Tinita Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai a ae ' 49. | M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai ===, S—«ssss—S | _ au. ‘| M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana | 241028 | 21. | M/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Peddapuram | 29to31 | Case No. 01 M/s. Flowserve India Controls Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/298/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021 ‘i Page 1 of 22 ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [2 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [2 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | | ----- End of picture text -----

Subject: To count the export of Free Shipping Bill No.8397391 dated 22.10.2018 towards fulfillment of EO against Advance Authorization No.3210078626 dated 27.08.2018.

The applicant stated that they had submitted the original documents for redemption of above advance authorization to RA, Coimbatore. However, RA has issued a deficiency letter dated 12.02.2020 stating that the shipping bills are assessed under Free Shipping bill and not under Advance License and hence cannot be considered for EO fulfillment. In this regard, they wish to bring that in view of the urgency of the requirement by the overseas Customer, they hardly had any time between filing of shipping documents and shipment of consignment and hence, inadvertently, filed the shipping bill (No.8397391 dated 22.10.2018) as free shipping bill instead of advance license and also forgot to mention the advance license number in the shipping bills, though the exports were made in fulfillment of the EO against the above advance license only. The items imported vide advance license referred were only fitted in the export product. Hence, requested to condone the procedural lapse and accord approval for filing free shipping bill instead of advance license and non-inclusion of advance license number in the shipping bill.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and noted that the applicant has not submitted any cogent reason/ justification in support of any genuine hardship faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 02 M/s. Flowserve India Controls Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

F. No. 01/60/162/310/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: To count the export of Free Shipping Bill No.2679173 dated 12.03.2019 & 3086287 dated 28.03.2019 towards fulfillment of EO against Advance Authorization No.3210078754 dated 28.11.2018.

The applicant stated that they had submitted the original documents for redemption of above advance authorization to RA, Coimbatore. However, RA has issued a deficiency letter dated 12.02.2020 stating that the shipping bills are assessed under Free Shipping bill and not under Advance License and hence cannot be considered for EO fulfillment. In this regard, they wish to bring that in view of the urgency of the requirement by the overseas Customer, they hardly had any time between filing of shipping documents and shipment of consignment and hence, inadvertently, filed the shipping bills as free shipping bill instead of advance license and also forgot to mention the advance license number in the shipping bills, though the exports were made in fulfillment of the EO against the above advance license only. The items imported vide advance license referred were only fitted in the export product. Hence, requested to condone the procedural lapse and accord approval for filing free shipping bill instead of advance license and non-inclusion of advance license number in the shipping bills. | Quant __—

Page 2 of 22

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 03 M/s. Mak Controls and Systems (P) Ltd., Coimbatore F. No. 01/60/162/678/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: To allow FPS / MEIS benefit filed vide following six files against the supplies made to FTWZ:- (i) 32/21/087/84285/AM16, (ii) 32/21/087/84299/AM16, (iii) 32/21/090/00042/AM16, (iv) 32/21/090/80063/AM17, (v) 32/21/090/80064/AM17 and (vi) 32/21/090/80062/AM17.

This is defer case of PRC Meeting No.27/AM20 dated 14.01.2020 (Case No.30), wherein the Committee refer the issue to PC-3 Division for its examination. The applicant stated that it is not denied or contested that movement of goods from DTA to SEZ/FTWZ are exports. The Policy Para 3.06 lists only categories of ineligible transaction which includes, supplies made from DTA units to SEZ units and SEZ/EOU/EHTP/BPT/FTWZ products exported through DTA units. The PC No.20 dated 20.02.2019 adequately clarifies eligibility of MEIS for supplies made from DTA to FTWZ provided certain conditions are met. They have met the eligibility condition explicitly clarified by this Policy Circular. Under the circumstances they are eligible for claiming the MEIS duty scrip for the supplies made to FTW2Z.

Decision: The Committee discussed the case along with the comments received from PC-3 Division and found no merit or hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 04 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/324/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorisation No.0310822905 dated

07.08.2018.

The applicant stated that there are 23 different import items which are of both bulk and non-bulk nature. Depending upon the nature of the import item, it is imported at different ports. They applied for 1* revalidation up to 06.02.2020 in August 2019 which was received in September 2019 vide amendment sheet no.01 dated 05.09.2019. They could not complete the imports in this period due to unfavorable market condition /prices of the inputs. Therefore, they applied for grant of 2"° revalidation on 18.02.2020 (up to 05.08.2020). However, in March 2020 lockdown was started due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Due to lockdown the work was adversely impacted everywhere. After follow-up, the 2" revalidation up to 06.08.2020 was received in late August 2020 vide amendment sheet no.02 dated 21.08.2020. By this

Page 3 of 22 \Qyomt_—.

time, the import validity was expired and they are not in a position to complete imports. They also could not avail the opportunity for extension of 1° revalidation which was granted vide PN 67 dated 31.03.2020 as they had already applied for grant of 2" revalidation in the month of March, 2020.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to various restrictions imposed on account of ongoing lockdown during the period of COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310822905 dated 07.08.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 05 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/326/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Aauthorisation No.0310823152 dated 20.08.2018. The applicant stated that there are 23 different import items which are of both bulk and non-bulk nature. Depending upon the nature of the import item, it is imported at different ports. They applied for 1“ revalidation up to 19.02.2020 in September 2019 which was received in February 2020 vide amendment sheet no.01 dated 12.02.2020. They could not complete the imports in this period due to unfavorable market condition /prices of the inputs. Therefore, they applied for grant of ae revalidation on 11.03.2020 (up to 18.08.2020). However, immediately after submission of their application, lockdown was started due to COVID-19 Pandemic. Due to lockdown the work was adversely impacted everywhere. After follow-up, the 2"? revalidation up to 06.08.2020 was received in late August 2020 vide amendment sheet no.02 dated 18.08.2020. Thus, they lost 1* as well 2™ revalidation time period due to delay in receipt of revalidation. They also could not avail the opportunity for extension of 1* revalidation which was granted vide PN 67 dated 31.03.2020 as they had already applied for grant of 2" revalidation in the month of March, 2020.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to various restrictions imposed on account of ongoing lockdown during the period of COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310823152 dated 20.08.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai) Case No. 06 M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., Mumbai LQyomn— Page 4 of 22

F. No. 01/60/162/325/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorisation No.0310818975 dated

07.02.2018.

The applicant stated that there are 24 different import items which are of both bulk and non-bulk nature. Depending upon the nature of the import item, it is imported at different ports. The authorization was revalidated up to 05.02.2020 by their RA. They could not avail the opportunity for further extension for 6 months vide PN 67 dated 31.03.2020 due to various restrictions imposed on account of ongoing lockdown. Hence, requested for revalidation for 12 months (up to 05.02.2021) to complete the imports. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to various restrictions imposed on account of ongoing lockdown during the period of COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310818975 dated 07.02.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 07 M/s. MDA Agrocot Pvt. Ltd., Amravati, Maharashtra F. No. 01/60/162/327/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of TMA application for the period between June, 2019 and September, 2019.

The applicant stated that they are applying Transport Marketing Assistance (TMA) Scheme vide E-Com number 03110773150010140218 dated 21.10.2020 for the period July 2019 to September 2019. However the system is not accepting their application because the last date for applying is crossed. Further stated that March 2020 to May 2020 lockdown has been imposed country wide. They had to completely shut down manufacturing for more than 2 months. They only dispatched the already manufactured stock during this period. In this time most of their staff had left to their native places and have not returned. Most of the documentation was left incomplete creating a lot of discrepancies in data. All their supply chain has been completely disrupted. In June, 2020 to September 2020, they have resumed operations in June 2020. It took them close to 3 months to correct the documentation discrepancies, hire the staff and set right the supply chain. Even though the unlock has been started, inter-state transport was still very strict and they have to work day and night to continuously monitor the supply of fruits and vegetable to arrive in time at the factory gate. It has been very difficult for them to do basic day-to-day operations. Since, e- BRC is one of the mandatory documents required for making the complete application they were not in a position to apply for the TMA for the period between Page[5][of][22] Sgt

June 2019 and September 2019 by 30.09.2020. Hence, requested waiver of procedural requirement.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede the request for condonation of delay in submission of TMA application for the period June, 2019 and September, 2019. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 60 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/ RA-Mumbai/EDI/NIC for necessary updation in the System)

Case No. 08 M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, Noida

F. No. 01/60/162/009/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against the shipping bills pertain to the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 which is time barred due to delay in uploading of the e- BRC.

This is defer case of PRC Meeting No.12/AM21 dated 29.09.2020 (Case No.15), wherein the Committee deferred the case to seek a report from the concerned bank about delays in uploading the e-BRCs. The applicant stated that against the shipping bills of above mentioned year they received payments on time from their buyers, however due to some technical problem in the e-BRC issuance portal of their Bank Namely “State Bank of India”, the Bank could not generate and upload e-BRCs against the mentioned shipping bills on DGFT website within the prescribed time period of three years from the date of issuance of shipping bills (which is the prescribed maximum period for filing MEIS scrip). Due to which they could not file their application for issuance of MEIS on time and their shipping bills got expired. However now the problem of server at Banker's end has been sorted out partially and the e-BRC against subject shipping bills have also been issued by their Bankers. Besides this, uploading of balance pending e-BRC’s are under process at banker's end. Therefore based upon the facts furnished by them and taking into consideration genuine technical problem, they requested to allow MEIS benefit against shipping bills for which the E-BRC have been issued after the expiry period of the shipping bills, enabling them to avail the incentive benefit.

Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant along with report received from concerned bank and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of e-BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 (MEIS) benefits for the shipping bills pertain to the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 without any late cut for which payments have been realized on time but the e-BRC have been uploaded by the bank after the expiry of three years from the date of let export. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant /EDI/NIC for necessary updation in the System) Page 6 of 22 \ Leak

Case No. 09 M/s. Sutlej Ropes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/760/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310742423 dated 22.07.2013.

This is defer case of PRC Meeting No.13/AM21 dated 06.10.2020 (Case No.12), wherein the Committee defer the case and seek a detailed report from RA, Mumbai. The applicant stated that the subject license pertains to order received from Nepal and Oman for which they have completed 100% shipment, realized all export proceeds and discharged their export obligation in Toto. They exported substantial quantities of their products to Nepal. This order was shipped by surface (Road Transport) via Indo-Nepal borders of Rexaul. The Nepal Customs as per their procedure take a minimum of 4 months for endorsements/clearance of the license. Therefore, a significant delay occurred in submission for EODC/Redemption to RA, Mumbai which is in process with them. They were under Defaulter List due to non payment from General Railway Company of Syria, a Govt. of Syria owned enterprise. Despite having suffered grave financial losses in the Syrian order, as a defaulter they were not able to realize their export earnings (Syria order). Thus license could not be utilized and unable to claim benefits during this time. By the time their name was removed from the defaulter list, the license got expired. In order to offset the high cost of indigenous inputs, they are in need to import their raw material free of duty. The nationwide lockdown and COVID-19 pandemic has further crippled their financial condition.

Decision: The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm along with report received from the RA, Mumbai. The Committee decided to call the firm for Personal Hearing and also decided to seek a detailed report from RA, Mumbai in chronological order, of the events from the date of filing of redemption request till today for taking the final decision.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai/PRC-Division)

Case No. 10 M/s. RR Kabel Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/334/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorisation No.0310823811 dated

18.09.2018.

The applicant stated that the first extension was granted to them for six months from 18.09.2019 to 17.03.2020. Till 11.04.2019 they have completed 100% EO. However as lockdown has started from the month of March 2020 in all over India, they could not make application for 2™ revalidation in the month of March 2020. As soon as the situation gets little better they have applied for 2"° revalidation on 05.06.2020 and received the 2™ revalidation on 24.06.2020 and transmitted at Customs site on 30.06.2020. But while filing bill of entry for Import under the said Advance Authorization an error shown “Rejected-New Amended CIF-FC Balance CIF — CIF

Page 7 of 22 Sugeest ——

(2/2/40)” on Custom system. After checking with Customs they came know that due to single CIF Value mentioned against Import item No.1 and no value shown against Import item no. 2, 3 and 4, an error is shown for the said Advance Authorization. They have again approached RA, Mumbai for amendment of Amendment sheet no.2 showing the separate CIF value against all import item on 23.07.2020, wherein they have asked to submit manual application at counter. Accordingly, they have submitted manual application at DGFT counter on 02.09.2020 which amendment was granted on 09.09.2020 and the validity of the Authorization was extended to 17.09.2020, wherein they had only 8 days available for effecting import of the balance import quantity. In this short period of 8 days, they were unable to source the balance import of filler (Calcium Carbonate) which they have exported. They have achieved EO and earned foreign exchange. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310823811 dated 18.09.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 11

Case No. 11 M/s. RR Kabel Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/335/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorisation 18.09.2018.

No.0310823809 dated

The applicant stated that the first extension was granted to them for six months from 18.09.2019 to 17.03.2020. Till 26.04.2019 they have completed 100% EO. However as lockdown has been started from the month March 2020 in all over India, they could not make application for 2™ revalidation in the month of March 2020. As soon as the situation gets little better they have applied for 2™ revalidation on 05.06.2020 and received the 2™ revalidation on 24.06.2020 and transmitted at Customs site on 30.06.2020. But while filing bill of entry for Import under the said Advance Authorization an error shown “Rejected-New Amended CIF-FC Balance CIF — CIF (2/2/40)” on Custom system. After checking with Custom they came know that due to single CIF Value mentioned against Import item No.1 and no value shown against Import item no. 2, 3 and 4 an error is shown for the said Advance Authorization. They have again approached RA, Mumbai for amendment of Amendment sheet no.2 showing the separate CIF value against all import item on 23.07.2020, wherein they have asked to submit manual application at counter. Accordingly, they have submitted manual application at DGFT counter on 02.09.2020 which amendment was granted on 09.09.2020 and the validity of the Authorization was extended to 17.09.2020, wherein they had only 8 days available for effecting import of the balance import quantity. In this short period of 8 days, they were unable to source the balance import of filler (Calcium Carbonate) which they have exported. They

\Quomt—

Page 8 of 22

have achieved EO and earned foreign exchange. Hence, requested to grant them 2™ Revalidation of the said Advance Authorization.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310823809 dated 18.09.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 12 M/s. Bikash Sharma, Malda, West Bengal F. No. 01/60/162/201/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 51 non-EDI Shipping bills which pertain to the year 2017-18 and 2018-19.

The applicant stated that the LCS INCBDB (Changrabandha) locate in West Bengal shares border with Bangladesh and is a notified Port from where they exported a lot consignments in the FY 2017-2018 & 2018-2019. The LCS INCBDB was a non- EDI port and all the trade practices and procedures were followed manually. The problem they have faced was while applying for MEIS claim, as because the DGFT online portal of MEIS is not allowing them to manually input data of shipping bill and file claim stating that the LCS INCBDB has turned EDI since 29.06.2017 which is incorrect as the correct date is 29.05.2019 as stated in facility notice: 01/2019 issued by Commissioner of Customs, West Bengal, 2 years post the original one. To resolve this issue, they contacted CCP west Bengal, ICEGATE, DGFT EDI Helpdesk and even RA but could not find any resolution. Even today the date is incorrect and due to which they cannot file their claim. They are in huge trouble as a huge deserved amount is blocked and the shipping bills are about to complete 3 years from date of issue and shall be expired from claiming whereas there is no mistake from them and they deserve complete claim with zero late cut.

Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to technical problem, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to allow MEIS benefit against 51 non-EDI shipping bills pertain to the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 without any late cut. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Kolkata/EDI/NIC for necessary updation in the System)

Case No. 13 M/s. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad F. No. 01/60/162/914/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021 (Qo —

Page 9 of 22

Subject: To condone the delay in fulfilling the EO already completed before 30.06.2018 against Advance Authorisation No. 0810135506 dated 19.06.2015 for EODC.

The applicant stated that they had paid composition fee of Rs.15,04,000.00 on unfulfilled EO of 50% for 2" extension. To re-fix the EO they had paid duty with interest for 2 BOE and regularized the case to fall within 50% EO for second extension. After 2 BOE duty payment (Rs.83,18,484.00 i.e. duty Rs.62,18,466.00 + interest Rs.21,00,18.00) with interest their EO fulfillment is 51.603% in terms of quantity and 70.10% in INR against the actual imports made. As the RA had granted EOP up to 18.09.2017, they exported the left over quantity they had filed for third extension and to regularization their case. In this tough time when the entire trade is in very bad shape, they request to condone this lapse and encourage them by considering their request as they have finally done the export and have realized the FOREX too. They plead finally to consider their request as they have not made any revenue loss to the country by exporting it bit late. In total they have already paid Rs.98,22,484.00 towards composition fee & duty towards 2 BOE. They have completed EO before 30.06.2018 (within 36 months of issue of AA). Hence, requested for EOP extension to regularize the export already made beyond EOP.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede the request and allowed EOP extension up to 30.06.2018 of Advance Authorization No.0810135506 dated 19.06.2015 only for regularization purpose subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% per month on unfulfilled FOB value from the date of expiry of extended EOP. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Ahmadabad)

Case No. 14 M/s. Gulnar Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/339/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Extension in EOP against Advance Authorisation No.0310817236 dated 23.11.2017.

The applicant stated that as per the provision a minimum 50% of export obligation is to be fulfilled in quantity as well as in value as prorata basis to get 2™' EO extension. However, continuous delay of orders from their buyer due to poor market condition, they have not been able to fulfill the 50% condition. EO completed in terms of quantity as prorata basis is 43.93% and EO completed in terms of value prorata basis is 88.67%. However, now they have confirmed export orders in hand from M/s Reese wholesale, Indianapolis (USA), for quantity of 580 MT approximately which will help them to fulfill the entire export obligation in terms of quantity and value as well. They unutilised imported inputs are available with them. Hence, requested to for extension in EOP.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and noted that the applicant has not submitted any cogent reason/ justification in support of any

a

Page 10 of 22

genuine hardship faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 15 M/s. APS Hydro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

F. No. 01/60/162/281/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Relaxation of the condition of Para 7.03 (a) of Hand Book of Procedures ‘that IEC should be in existence at the time of supply / receipt of goods’.

The applicant stated that the requirement to obtain IEC before the date of supply as interpreted by the Policy interpretation Committee in its meeting dated 28.08.2020 should be done away with specifically in their case since they are merely deemed exporters and are not involved in any physical import of goods. Since no foreign exchange is involved and the services are rendered within India, possession of IEC should not be a mandatory requirement for claiming deemed export benefit in their case. In view of the above facts as stated they have requested that the condition of IEC should be in existence at the time of Supply/receipt of goods’ as interpreted by the Policy of Interpretation Committee of para 7.03 (a) of the FTP maybe duly relaxed in their case so that they are able to claim deemed export benefit even though they obtained IEC after the date of supply.

Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length and found no merit or hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 16 M/s. Sanchita Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/382/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of TMA application for the export period 01.07.2019 to 30.09.2019.

The applicant stated they prepared following TMA application against ECOM No.03050198480010042202 export period 01.07.2019 to 30.09.2019 and trying to submit application but, received message ‘submission date exceed 09.10.2020’. Further stated that due to lockdown and current situation of Pandemic Corona Virus staff are not coming to offices and doing work from home but all of documents are lying in office and also local train are not allowed to travel other than essential services in Mumbai. Hence they could not finalise the application within the due date. Still they have problem of staff as they are not willing to come office in fear of spread of COVID-19. And also while submitting online application there was error on DGFT website, hence could not be able to submit online application of TMA. Hence, requested to condone the delay and allow submitting TMA application.

(Yvan

Page 11 of 22

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede the request for condonation of delay in submission of TMA application for the export period 01.07.2019 to 30.09.2019. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 60 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/ RA-Mumbai/EDI/NIC for necessary updation in the System)

Case No. 17 M/s. Shirdi Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/340/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of 4 MEIS License No.(i) 0319188837 dated 27.09.2018, (ii) 0319188841 dated 27.09.2018, (iii) 0319188845 dated 27.09.2018 & (iv) 0319190067 dated 04.10.2018.

The applicant stated that they were to utilise these scrips for their own use for duty payments during the period of March-October 2020. But after the outbreak of COVID-19 and continues lockdown, their administration and exports were greatly affected so much so their plant operations came to a standstill for some period as the area around their factory locations and many of Navi Mumbai areas were declared COVID Hot Spots. Many of their Senior Managers key employees, their family members got affected and it was indeed a Herculean task for the management to take care of all these aspects, apart from facing a situation of cancellation of export orders, loosing of new customers and new business opportunities and on top of it, critical economic situation and other innumerable problems. In view of the above, they could not utilise the said licenses.

Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length and found no merit or hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 18 M/s. Pon Pure Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai F. No. 01/60/162/351/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Permission to import restricted item ISOPAR-E with supply to Actual User Condition.

The applicant stated that they are not the end user but they supply the main raw material to all the end users only. This product is used as a reaction medium/cleaning solvents due to its inertness and zero odour. Hence it becomes a critical component in the manufacturing process of their Customers. All their end users requirement is very small in quantity to the tune of 500 Kgs to 1000 Kgs, and they cannot import such small quantities directly as the freight cost will be nearly three times. Moreover, supplier also not encouraging small quantity supplies. Since the product is not manufactured in our country they have been obtaining import Page 12 of 22 Daron —

licenses for the items with supply to actual user conditions for the past 5 years. All their regular customers in need of the product to manufacture their end products for domestic and export market. Hence, requested to grant permission to import with supply to actual user condition to enable them to supply to the manufacturers.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and decided to grant permission to import restricted item ISOPAR-E of 1000 MTs of value USD 1870000 to the firm against a License with a condition to supply to actual user manufacturers.

(Action: Applicant/ILS-Division)

Case No. 19 M/s. H.R. Polycoats Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/364/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Regularisation of export already made beyond EOP (i.e.within 31 Months) against Advance Authorisation No.0510400672 dated 08.12.2016 without composition fees for redemption purpose.

The applicant stated that they have been importing the raw materials viz. Polyster Resins Paste, Paper Release, Blowing Agent, Polyster Knitted Fabrics etc. for export their product vis. PVC coated Leather clothes. Export order cancelled due to price fluctuation after GST implementation in July, 2018. They had imported the Raw Material in the year 2017 and effect one part quantity of final product utilizing the imported raw material in part. After introduction of GST, their final product price had gone high and could not compete the international price especially the price in the China market/ Though they have imported the raw material well before the GST period the said raw material were made use in the final product. Owing the price fluctuation in the international market, their buyer had cancelled the orders and they were helpless to effect export of product. However, they had exported the final product in fulfillment of EO in 100%. They have already facing deep financial crises owing to sudden lock down of the total industry in the COVID-19 issue. Hence, requested for consideration to count export made within 31 months from license date and waiver of the composition fees for redemption purpose only.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 07.07.2019 of Advance Authorisation No. 0510400672 dated 08.12.2016 only for regularization purpose subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% within initial /extended EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial/extended EOP. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 20 M/s. Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/328/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021 ee

Page 13 of 22

Subject: Revalidation of SFIS Scrip License No.0710114281 dated 14.12.2018.

The applicant stated that they are unable to utilize full value within time period and are unable to import during this COVID-19 Pandemic period from Feb 2020 to till date and which requirement of the customer are also come down. Further, their major Imports are from Europe countries, which are under lockdown till mid of Jan 2021. Import material transit time itself is 45 days to 60 days. Thus, they are unable to utilize SFIS script with in validity period. They have applied for extension of validity to RA, Bangalore vide letter dated 15.10.2020, however not considered as there is no provision in policy. Hence, requested to extend the validity for one year. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Moreover, SFIS is non-transferable scrip. Accordingly, it decided to accede the request and allowed revalidation of SFIS Authorisation No.0710114281 dated 14.12.2018 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Bangalore)

Case No. 21 M/s. Asian Tire Factory Ltd., Jalandhar F. No. 01/60/162/365/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation of following 10 Advance Authorizations to import Natural Rubber:(1) 3010103568 dated 23.07.2015, (2) 3010103748 dated 29.03.2016, (3) 3010103812 dated 28.07.2016, (4) 3010104069 dated 30.06.2017, (5) 3010104067 dated 30.06.2017, (6) 3010104109 dated 30.08.2017, (7) 3010104201 dated 03.01.2018, (8) 3010104215 dated 22.01.2018, (9) 3010104216 dated 22.01.2018 and (10) 3010104250 dated 26.02.2018.

The applicant stated that they could not able to import because of the ambiguity in the policy and procedures and implementation thereof. They had filed online application for advance authorisation and received file number and started their exports considering Para 4.27 oh HBP (2015-2020) Exports in Anticipation of Authorisation: (a) “Exports/supplies made from the date of EDI generated file number for an advance Authorisation, may be accepted towards discharge of EO. Shipping / supply documents(s) should be endorsed with File number or Authorisation Number to establish co-relation of exports / supplies with Authorisation issued”. And did the same also because they have few export orders in hand which were time bound. While importing Natural Rubber under advance authorization, the export has to take place within 6 months as per PN No.81 dated 09.01.2015, whereas the EO is to be fulfilled in 18 months as per present FTP and as also endorsed on the face of authorization. Thus, it is contradictory to each other. It is practically not possible for exporting within 6 months considering the procedural time after issuance of import authorization. Moreover, the process of manufacturing value added finished rubber products as per the export orders takes considerable time and Natural Rubber is just one of the component in entire matrix of the manufacturing

Page 14 of 22 Dayo —

process of value added Rubber products which required more than 20 components including Rubber Chemicals, Carbon Black, Silica Filler, Consumables, processing Oil, Synthetic Rubber, Zinc oxide, Antioxidants, Accelerators and so on. Dueto this, the movement of import cargo from the said port to the factory site also takes long time. Taking all these aspects into accounts, 6 months time gets over by the time they finalize another order. Moreover, maintaining such check is humongous, where export orders are having time bound delivery schedule. Hence, requested for revalidation to enable them to import.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 22 M/s. Tinita Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/356/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Waiver of Procedure lapse of not mentioning the Advance Authorization Number in S/Bills towards fulfillment of EO against Advance Authorization No.0310806379 dated 13.07.2016. The applicant stated that after the preliminary meetings, it was decided as that they as a manufacturer will avail the advance authorisation scheme to import duty free materials and will produce the end product to International standard. M/s Thyssensruppindustrial Solutions will be exporting in their name as the merchant exporter. Accordingly they have issued CT 1 form for exemption of excise duty and they in turn filed the application for issuance of advance authorization. They have obtained the above advance authorisation for export of various engineering items with FOB. Further, stated that they have completed the export obligation by supplying to, i.e M/s Thyssensruppindustrial Solutions, Vikhroli (West) Mumbai, Maharashtra and realized the payment in an approved manner and in normal banking channels. Unfortunately, while exporting, they did not neither indicate the advance Authorisation number nor their company’s name as manufacturer exporter in the shipping bill which resulted in disallowment of Export Obligation against the subject Authorisation. Hence, requested to consider the exports made towards fulfillment of EO.

Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length and found no merit or hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 23 M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/377/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021 oe

oe aaa

Page 15 of 22

Subject: To Allow SEIS claim for the period 2016-17.

The applicant stated that their SEIS claim for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 got time barred. It is submitted that on March, 2020 they had arranged all documents except CA certificate. However, due to sudden nationwide lockdown imposed due to COVID-19 outbreak their office was closed and they could not arrange CA certificate from their site. Further as there was strict lockdown in Mumbai they are unable to go to office to arrange CA certificate and due to which they are unable to file application even though relaxation in last date of filling application was given under SEIS. Now increased duration of validity has also expired. Further stated that they have now arranged CA certificate, however due to time barred, the above period is locked in DGFT web site for application. Hence, requested to allow SEIS claim for the said period.

Decision: The Committee after examining the case decided to reject the case as the same was found to be without any merit.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 24 M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana

F. No. 01/60/162/352/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation and Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510406318 dated 04.05.2018 for a period of one year from the date of endorsement without any penalty or fee.

The applicant stated that they have been issued 184 advance authorisations and redeemed 134 already. Another 22 advance authorisations are filed for redemption. Pending advance authorisations will also be filed in few weeks time as all obligations are complete at their end. In 2018, they experienced major disturbance in their company wherein management factions had dispute which went out of proportions and finally bank accounts were debit frozen thus calling off all their bank limits and matter went to NCLT courts and other courts. During this time, they obtained few advance authorisations and part import utilisation was done and export obligation was to be started or started in few authorisations. However, due to management dispute, frozen bank accounts, unavailability of funds, they were unable to service their export order book and thus all export orders at that time were cancelled with time. The management dispute went for 2 long years and finally settled in February 2020. For these 2 years, their plant was completely shut down and they were not doing any production. After making settlement in NCLT court Jaipur, they were given the ownership of Prayag Polytech. Immediately on receipt of all clearances from court and banks, they started making exports to their customers. As they have few advance authorisations issued in the year 2018, where export obligation is pending need to be extended and also we have import utilisation pending in this advance authorisation which they need to import. As the circumstances have put them in this difficult situation, their financial situation does not allow them to bear any cost to revalidate this authorisation. Hence, requested for revalidation and extension of EOP without any penalty or fees for completing the import and export obligations and then redeem the advance authorisation. ( pyeyt_.

Page 16 of22

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that there is merit in their case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0510406318 dated 04.05.2018 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The Committee also allowed EOP extension of the said authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50%. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 25 M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/329/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation and Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510405892 dated 16.03.2018 for a period of one year from the date of endorsement without any penalty or fee.

The applicant stated that they have been issued 184 advance authorisations and redeemed 134 already. Another 22 advance authorisations are filed for redemption. Pending advance authorisations will also be filed in few weeks time as all obligations are complete at their end. In 2018, they experienced major disturbance in their company wherein management factions had dispute which went out of proportions and finally bank accounts were debit freezed thus calling off all their bank limits and matter went to NCLT courts and other courts. During this time, they obtained few advance authorisations and part import utilisation was done and export obligation was to be started or started in few authorisations. However, due to management dispute, freezed bank accounts, unavailability of funds, they were unable to service their export order book and thus all export orders at that time were cancelled with time. The management dispute went for 2 long years and finally settled in February 2020. For these 2 years, their plant was completely shut down and they were not doing any production. After making settlement in NCLT court Jaipur, they were given the ownership of Prayag Polytech. Immediately on receipt of all clearances from court and banks, they started making exports to their customers. As they have few advance authorisations issued in the year 2018, where export obligation is pending need to be extended and also we have import utilisation pending in this advance authorisation which they need to import. As the circumstances have put them in this difficult situation, their financial situation does not allow them to bear any cost to revalidate this authorisation. Hence, requested for revalidation and extension of EOP without any penalty or fees for completing the import and export obligations and then redeem the advance authorisation.

from the date of endorsement. The Committee also allowed EOP extension of the said authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50%. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 26 M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/380/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation and Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510405160 dated 29.12.2017 for a period of one year from the date of endorsement without any penalty or fee.

The applicant stated that they have been issued 184 advance authorisations and redeemed 134 already. Another 22 advance authorisations are filed for redemption. Pending advance authorisations will also be filed in few weeks time as all obligations are complete at their end. In 2018, they experienced major disturbance in their company wherein management factions had dispute which went out of proportions and finally bank accounts were debit freezed thus calling off all their bank limits and matter went to NCLT courts and other courts. During this time, they obtained few advance authorisations and part import utilisation was done and export obligation was to be started or started in few authorisations. However, due to management dispute, freezed bank accounts, unavailability of funds, they were unable to service their export order book and thus all export orders at that time were cancelled with time. The management dispute went for 2 long years and finally settled in February 2020. For these 2 years, their plant was completely shut down and they were not doing any production. After making settlement in NCLT court Jaipur, they were given the ownership of Prayag Polytech. Immediately on receipt of all clearances from court and banks, they started making exports to their customers. As they have few advance authorisations issued in the year 2018, where export obligation is pending need to be extended and also we have import utilisation pending in this advance authorisation which they need to import. As the circumstances have put them in this difficult situation, their financial situation does not allow them to bear any cost to revalidate this authorisation. Hence, requested for revalidation and extension of EOP without any penalty or fees for completing the import and export obligations and then redeem the advance authorisation.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that there is merit in their case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0510405160 dated 29.12.2017 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The Committee also allowed EOP extension of the said authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% or @ 1% per month where exports have been

a

Page 18 of 22

made less than 50%. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 27 M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/353/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation and Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510405535 dated 05.02.2018 for a period of one year from the date of endorsement without any penalty or fee.

The applicant stated that they have been issued 184 advance authorisations and redeemed 134 already. Another 22 advance authorisations are filed for redemption. Pending advance authorisations will also be filed in few weeks time as all obligations are complete at their end. In 2018, they experienced major disturbance in their company wherein management factions had dispute which went out of proportions and finally bank accounts were debit freezed thus calling off all their bank limits and matter went to NCLT courts and other courts. During this time, they obtained few advance authorisations and part import utilisation was done and export obligation was to be started or started in few authorisations. However, due to management dispute, freezed bank accounts, unavailability of funds, they were unable to service their export order book and thus all export orders at that time were cancelled with time. The management dispute went for 2 long years and finally settled in February 2020. For these 2 years, their plant was completely shut down and they were not doing any production. After making settlement in NCLT court Jaipur, they were given the ownership of Prayag Polytech. Immediately on receipt of all clearances from court and banks, they started making exports to their customers. As they have few advance authorisations issued in the year 2018, where export obligation is pending need to be extended and also we have import utilisation pending in this advance authorisation which they need to import. As the circumstances have put them in this difficult situation, their financial situation does not allow them to bear any cost to revalidate this authorisation. Hence, requested for revalidation and extension of EOP without any penalty or fees for completing the import and export obligations and then redeem the advance authorisation.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that there is merit in their case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0510405535 dated 05.02.2018 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The Committee also allowed EOP extension of the said authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50%. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

\Qvjont_—_

Page 19 of 22

Case No. 28 M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/368/AM21/PRC

PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: Revalidation and Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510404355 dated 23.10.2017 for a period of one year from the date of endorsement without any penalty or fee.

The applicant stated that they have been issued 184 advance authorisations and redeemed 134 already. Another 22 advance authorisations are filed for redemption. Pending advance authorisations will also be filed in few weeks time as all obligations are complete at their end. In 2018, they experienced major disturbance in their company wherein management factions had dispute which went out of proportions and finally bank accounts were debit freezed thus calling off all their bank limits and matter went to NCLT courts and other courts. During this time, they obtained few advance authorisations and part import utilisation was done and export obligation was to be started or started in few authorisations. However, due to management dispute, freezed bank accounts, unavailability of funds, they were unable to service their export order book and thus all export orders at that time were cancelled with time. The management dispute went for 2 long years and finally settled in February 2020. For these 2 years, their plant was completely shut down and they were not doing any production. After making settlement in NCLT court Jaipur, they were given the ownership of Prayag Polytech. Immediately on receipt of all clearances from court and banks, they started making exports to their customers. As they have few advance authorisations issued in the year 2018, where export obligation is pending need to be extended and also we have import utilisation pending in this advance authorisation which they need to import. As the circumstances have put them in this difficult situation, their financial situation does not allow them to bear any cost to revalidate this authorisation. Hence, requested for revalidation and extension of EOP without any penalty or fees for completing the import and export obligations and then redeem the advance authorisation.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that there is merit in their case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0510404355 dated 23.10.2017 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. The Committee also allowed EOP extension of the said authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50%. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 29 M/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Peddapuram F. No. 01/60/162/374/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

==> picture [87 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- on— ----- End of picture text -----

Page 20 of 22

Subject: Extension in EOP against Advance Authorisation No.2610012779

dated 15.12.2016.

Decision: The Committee noted the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed there is merit in the case and accordingly decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.2610012779 dated 15.12.2016 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to the payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% within initial /extended EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial/extended EOP. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Vishakhapatnam)

Case No. 30 M/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Peddapuram F. No. 01/60/162/372/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: EOP Extension against Advance Authorisation No.2610012767 dated 17.08.2016.

aee

organizing to start their operation. In view of the facts and present global market scenario, due to effect of COVID-19, they have requested to grant one year extension in EO to procure afresh the required aluminium granules and complete the short fall in export obligation.

Decision: The Committee noted the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed there is merit in the case and accordingly decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 2610012767 dated 17.08.2016 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to the payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% within initial /extended EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial/extended EOP. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Vishakhapatnam)

Case No. 31 M/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Peddapuram F. No. 01/60/162/373/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 dated 18.02.2021

Subject: EOP Extension against Advance Authorisation No.2610012763 dated 14.07.2016. :

The applicant stated that they are manufacturer of Low Carbon Ferro Chrome (LC Ferro Chrome) by alumino thermic process and export the same to countries in Europe and Japan. The also supply indigenous steel manufacturers like BHEL, Jindal Stainless Limited and other steel foundries. During 2016 for the first time they imported this material against advance authorization. Further, stated that during the end of 2016 they had faced a very serious financial setback since their Banker illegally made their account as NPA and stopped funding of working capital. They had fought against this in the court of law for more than 3 years and finally won the case in their favour. In view of the aforesaid setback, they had stopped their operations completely. Due to this, orders were suspended and imports were also not taken place. In the process, they have incurred a huge financial loss which is very difficult to absorb for a SME organization like them. However, they are organizing to start their operation. In view of the facts and present global market scenario, due to effect of COVID-19, they have requested to grant one year extension in EO to procure afresh the required aluminium granules and complete the short fall in export obligation. Decision: The Committee noted the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed there is merit in the case and accordingly decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 2610012763 dated 14.07.2016 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to the payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% within initial /extended EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial/extended EOP. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Vishakhapatnam)

Wr oot__

Page 22 of 22

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Analysis

No analysis has been generated for this document yet.